bradley newman

1, 2, 3, 4...

Been wrestling with some ideas on communal experiences / games, and it's remarkable how just the difference in the number of people can influence the resulting experience.

As one person, you basically have yourself to rely on and work against. With two, you have the other person to rely on, but if that person works against you, you have no one else. But with three, you can pair up and gain majority over the one person at any time. But as the odd person out, the majority over you is only 1 person at any time. This makes things like challenges, advantages, etc. relatively low.

Then there's the effect on intimacy and communication. Three's company, four's a party; I think there's an interesting change happening here. The inability of 3 to choose equal sided teams can be a good thing in that it creates a fluid decision making process via its oddness, and allows individuals to establish deeper interpersonal connections (i.e. you're more likely to spill your guts) than with 4+.

It also allows room for individuals to enjoy a degree of solitude in the experience, which is something I am having a hard time giving up (after having decided to create a group experience as opposed to a solitary one).

It would be interesting to experiment with changing the sex of participants and observing the differences of experience in relation to exertion of majority control, sexual desire, etc.

Should read some social psychology and theory on trinities. Maybe a psychology or communication student would be interested in the work.

Of course need to look at games for three. Come to think of it, it would be interesting to design games for couples. Now the idea of two couples playing a game is intriguing. Or in-game modulation, switching, trading of players. What happens when your "team" designation is dynamic? Should read about the New Games that do this.

09:50 PM    March 06, 2005    Comments 2

  

susana

  

susana